Gallus Properties v Richardson

Case [2005] QCA 428


[2005] QCA 428

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P

Appeal No 7416 of 2005

GALLUS PROPERTIES PTY LTD
ACN 080 959 726              First Respondent/First Plaintiff

and

PETER WILLIAM GALLUS        Second Respondent/Second Plaintiff

and

BROADBEACH VISTA PTY LTD
ACN 066 085 737            Not party to appeal/Third Plaintiff

and

KERRIE SUZANNE RICHARDSON     Third Respondent/First Defendant

and

AMMBAR PTY LTD
ACN 050 921 036             Fourth Respondent/Second Defendant

and

J V PROPERTY SYNDICATES PTY LTD
ACN 050 921 036               First Appellant/Third Defendant

and

CITIMARK FINANCE PTY LTD
ACN 079 010 861              Second Appellant/Unknown or n/a)

and

PHILLIP GREGORY JEFFERSON     Fifth Respondent/Unknown or n/a)

and

MATTHEW LESLIE JOINER          Fifth Respondent/Unknown or n/a

BRISBANE

..DATE 18/11/2005

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT:  By consent, the appeal is dismissed and the application for leave to appeal by Citimark Finance Pty Ltd is dismissed.

Leave is given to the parties to make written submissions as to the appropriate order for costs including the costs of and incidental to today's mention.

The first appellant and the second appellant/applicant for leave to appeal are to file and serve their written submissions as to costs on or before 25 November 2005.  The respondents are to file and serve their written submissions as to costs on or before 2 December 2005.  The first appellant and second appellant/applicant for leave to appeal are to serve any responsive written submissions as to costs on or before 5 December 2005.

...

THE PRESIDENT:  By consent, the appeal is to be determined on the papers and the parties are directed to comply with the practice direction in respect of the format of the outlines of argument on the costs of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal.

The orders are as I have set out.

-----

Details
AGLC
Gallus Properties v Richardson [2005] QCA 428
Case
[2005] QCA 428
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gallus Properties, including Peter William Gallus and Broadbeach Vista Pty Ltd, filed a claim against Kerrie Suzanne Richardson and Ammbar Pty Ltd, among others, which resulted in an appeal being heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The primary dispute revolved around property transactions and the rights and obligations of the parties involved. The appeal was dismissed by consent, and the application for leave to appeal by Citimark Finance Pty Ltd was also dismissed.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included the validity of certain agreements and transactions, the interpretation of contractual terms, and the application of property law principles. The court examined the evidence and arguments presented by the parties to determine the appropriate outcome of the appeal and the allocation of costs.

The Court of Appeal found that the appeal was properly dismissed by consent, and no further substantive issues were raised that required a detailed legal analysis. The court ordered that the parties submit written arguments regarding the costs associated with the appeal, including the costs of the hearing and the application for leave to appeal. The parties were given specific deadlines to file and serve their submissions.

The final orders of the court included the dismissal of the appeal and the application for leave to appeal, with directions for the parties to submit written submissions on the costs of the appeal. The deadlines for filing and serving these submissions were clearly outlined, ensuring that the process for determining the costs would proceed efficiently.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.